Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry

BackgroundRisk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry.MethodsA search for Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-analyses of RCTs published in periodontology and implant dentistry fields, was performed in the Cochrane Library in September 2014. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed by grouping RCTs with different levels of ROBs in three domains (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment). To increase power and precision, only SRs with meta-analyses including at least 10 RCTs were included. Meta-regression was performed to investigate the association between ROB characteristics and the magnitudes of intervention effects in the meta-analyses.ResultsOf the 24 initially screened SRs, 21 SRs were excluded because they did not include at least 10 RCTs in the meta-analyses. Three SRs (two from periodontology field) generated information for conducting 27 meta-analyses. Meta-regression did not reveal significant differences in the relationship of the ROB level with the size of treatment effect estimates, although a trend for inflated estimates was observed in domains with unclear ROBs.ConclusionIn this sample of RCTs, high and (mainly) unclear risks of selection and detection biases did not seem to influence the size of treatment effect estimates, although several confounders might have influenced the strength of the association.